Syria
Follow
Find
0 views | +0 today
 
Rescooped by Rachel Murphy from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
onto Syria
Scoop.it!

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval | Syria | Scoop.it
Contradicting President Obama’s assertion, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said this morning on “This Week” that the president does not have the authority to order a military strike on Syria without Congressional approval.

Via Teresa Herrin
Rachel Murphy's insight:

Cruz makes it clear that he does not approve of military action in Syria. He believes a strike would aid rebel forces with links to Al-Qaeda. The strike may weaken Assad, but it would only give rebel forces an opportunity to swoop in. His precautions with the attack are plausible. I like the point he made about how OUR US military is not Al-Qaeda's air force. They are here to defend the United States.

more...
Joseph Rumbaut's comment, September 12, 2013 8:08 AM
On the one hand Ted Cruz's reaction I agree with but not all of his solutions. Threatening to cut off Assad's resupply from Iran may aggravate a country or countries that don't need to be directly involved. His solution by the UN Security Council is a peaceful and effective course of action.
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:19 AM

Cruz spoke very well for the majority of the speech: he made a reasonable case about why an attack would not work. But he faltered on two points. One: The state of Texas, vast as though it may be, does not represent the United States. Two: It's almost become customary of Republicans to bring up Benghazi whenever possible. It happened, nothing short of a full-scale operation and the ability to see the future could have prevented it, let the American dead rest in peace.

 

Also, the longer you show the US not supporting innocent civilians, the more and more radical these "Islamic terrorists" will become. Cut to the chase - or in this case, a missile strike - and nip the thing in the bud before it grows too big.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:16 PM

This video shows how complicated this whole situation is, and I had no idea how opposed the public was to involvment in Syria. Is there is a way to reprimand him without a strike? War crimes need to be reprimanded, but does this mean we have to go to war? I was all for involvment, but now I'm really questioning whether that would be the right thing to do.

Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Rachel Murphy from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- What Obama and the tea party have in common

BY 10/20 -- What Obama and the tea party have in common | Syria | Scoop.it
They both disdain governing the way Madison intended.

Via Teresa Herrin
Rachel Murphy's insight:

Obama and the tea party don’t like the practice of politics. Obama wished that his healthcare bill didn’t require so many negotiations with so many different people. He wished to have no legislative involvement which is pretty impossible to do with our Madisonian constitution. Obama and the tea party are impatient with Madisonian politics. The tea party better learn patience or it will become history. I didn't know that our own president is so reluctant to go through the mostly always difficult process of passing a bill. Especially a huge healthcare reform bill.

more...
Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 7:10 PM

Both are similar in that they are really hard to compromise with. The framers of the government have aimed for the structure of the govt. to balnce out the power. I don't see any similarities between the two other than their characteristics when it comes to compromise.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:26 PM

I strongly agree  that politicians these days are so blinded by their parties' goals that they are unable to make necessary compromises that are better for the country. I like the way that the writer compares the Tea Party with Obama. He also says that because of this unwillingness to compromise, Obama has too much power.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 5:02 PM

The article says that both Obama and the Tea Party don't want to go through the process of compromising that Madison had planned out. They're both impatient and arent willing to work together. I think an issue like this should be compromised, They need to come up with a solution together and figure out what to do. Obama does want the legislative branch to touch Obamacare. In my opinion, thats not very democratic or fair. The legislative branch represents the US citizens. we elect representatives in the legislative branch so we can have a voice. With Obama saying he doesn''t want congess to touch it seems like he doesn't really care about our opinion.

Scooped by Rachel Murphy
Scoop.it!

Why I’ll vote no on Syria strike

Why I’ll vote no on Syria strike | Syria | Scoop.it
Ted Cruz, a Republican, represents Texas in the Senate, where he is a member of the Armed Services Committee. No decision by an elected official is more serious than whether to send our armed forces...
Rachel Murphy's insight:

Ted Cruz makes some very valid points about Obama's intended "limited" air strike. Cruz recognizes that Assad's actions were terrible, but they weren't a direct threat to US national security. Assad is horrible, but that doesn't mean that the rebels are any better (they have links to Al-Qaeda). Any  limited attack on Syria could quickly get out of control. Lastly, his best point, is that we are not the world's police. The men and women in our military signed up to defend America, not Syria. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Rachel Murphy from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com | Syria | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: A Meet the Press roundtable forecasts the pressure on this upcoming week for the president to make his case for intervention in the Syrian conflict.

Via Teresa Herrin
Rachel Murphy's insight:

All of the politicians here are hesitant about military strikes in Syria. because they aren't sure about the effect that it would cause. Newt Gingrich makes some excellent points about the importance of communication. I believe some action needs to be taken in Syria, but a strike would only unleash more problems for us. Syria's allies are too powerful. 

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, September 11, 2013 10:36 PM

Really enjoyed this video in the sense that it gave me more insight to what's going on and different points of view. Several points like the fact that innocent civilians will die on our watch because of the airstrike was one i especially liked because it made me think more deeply into why we shouldnt intervene. It's clear that this is a huge predicament that even the Round table finds difficult to choose a side in the sense that as a nation we are stuck on deciding whether to be or not to be the "world's policemen."

Daniel Guo's curator insight, September 11, 2013 11:49 PM

I think that Newt Gingrich brings up good points about why it's hard for the public to support an airstrike on Syria. I think that this dicussion is a fair representation of the current public opinion on the matter- nobody wants to directly support a strike; there is no clear right answer.

Joseph Rumbaut's comment, September 12, 2013 7:40 AM
Likewise, Gingrich is right to say that this foreign affair is inexplicable to the average American so if Obama was going to appeal to the average American he would have to build up to it and not just be blunt. Honestly though, after watching Obama's address, I feel like he should have mentioned diplomacy more instead of making it seem as if the only choices left were military action, military action, and military action.
Scooped by Rachel Murphy
Scoop.it!

'We have our plans': Vladimir Putin warns US against Syria military action - The Guardian

'We have our plans': Vladimir Putin warns US against Syria military action - The Guardian | Syria | Scoop.it
The Guardian 'We have our plans': Vladimir Putin warns US against Syria military action The Guardian In an interview with Associated Press and Russia's state Channel 1 television, Putin said it was too early to talk about what Russia would do if...
Rachel Murphy's insight:

As a Syrian ally, Putin promises that they will have to take some sort of action if the US decides to carryout a strike on Syria. He isn't against the idea of a UN resolution on punitive military strikes. That's  been my question all along. Why is the US trying to be the hero? Isn't it the UN's job to be the world's police, not the US' alone?

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Rachel Murphy from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval | Syria | Scoop.it
Contradicting President Obama’s assertion, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said this morning on “This Week” that the president does not have the authority to order a military strike on Syria without Congressional approval.

Via Teresa Herrin
Rachel Murphy's insight:

Cruz makes it clear that he does not approve of military action in Syria. He believes a strike would aid rebel forces with links to Al-Qaeda. The strike may weaken Assad, but it would only give rebel forces an opportunity to swoop in. His precautions with the attack are plausible. I like the point he made about how OUR US military is not Al-Qaeda's air force. They are here to defend the United States.

more...
Joseph Rumbaut's comment, September 12, 2013 8:08 AM
On the one hand Ted Cruz's reaction I agree with but not all of his solutions. Threatening to cut off Assad's resupply from Iran may aggravate a country or countries that don't need to be directly involved. His solution by the UN Security Council is a peaceful and effective course of action.
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:19 AM

Cruz spoke very well for the majority of the speech: he made a reasonable case about why an attack would not work. But he faltered on two points. One: The state of Texas, vast as though it may be, does not represent the United States. Two: It's almost become customary of Republicans to bring up Benghazi whenever possible. It happened, nothing short of a full-scale operation and the ability to see the future could have prevented it, let the American dead rest in peace.

 

Also, the longer you show the US not supporting innocent civilians, the more and more radical these "Islamic terrorists" will become. Cut to the chase - or in this case, a missile strike - and nip the thing in the bud before it grows too big.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:16 PM

This video shows how complicated this whole situation is, and I had no idea how opposed the public was to involvment in Syria. Is there is a way to reprimand him without a strike? War crimes need to be reprimanded, but does this mean we have to go to war? I was all for involvment, but now I'm really questioning whether that would be the right thing to do.